It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It's not like the floors were particularly strong, they were a few inches of lightweight concrete.
Originally posted by filosophia
your attempt to prove the building is "lightweight" concrete is inaccurate, as the building survived many explosive blasts on that day.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Yeah, Anders Björkman through Heiwa Co. is offering 10,000 euros to anyone who can build a model based on Bazant's paper that can demonstrate how a total collapse would be possible.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Yeah, Anders Björkman through Heiwa Co. is offering 10,000 euros to anyone who can build a model based on Bazant's paper that can demonstrate how a total collapse would be possible.
Kent Hovind offers prizes for proving evolution too. Why it's almost as if the people who set up these awards also control the circumstances so that no matter what occured they will never give away the prize.
PS. A long discussion about the type of building to be constructed was discussed at JREF, you might consider reading it if you really want to see how bad Heiwa can be.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
And Bazant was just demonstrated to be utterly wrong in his assumptions that this could destroy the entire building because as each impact occurs, it must necessarily collapse one floor of the pile driver itself until there is no more collapse energy available.
This would, in a perfect pancake scenario, run out of steam 12 floors beneath the impact point.[
Further, no matter how you slice it, constant acceleration through the path of most resistance would never occur.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
They look pretty clear to me.
PS. you might want to consider reading over the AE911 publications on the WTC's construction characteristics.
Originally posted by exponent
You're ignoring acceleration due to gravity after the first collapse. Even if every collapse destroyed a floor of both blocks, there is then a 24 foot drop where the parts will be accelerated. The mass doesn't diminish, so the energy doesn't either (except for impacts).
Bazant is an extremely well respected, highly cited scientist. These papers were published in an extremely well respected, widely read journal. You'll have to do a little better than "this guy on the internet says he's wrong".
I guess you'll have to explain to me how this works then:
Originally posted by mnemeth1
You'll have to do a little better than saying he is right simply because he is "extremely well respected".
So are the 1300 engineers that agree with me.
No problem.
See where the collapse point starts? - in the middle. This is because, as Chandler clearly demonstrates, for each lower floor destroyed, an upper floor is also consumed in the process. This is where the kinetic energy to keep the collapse going comes from.
Originally posted by exponent
You're ignoring acceleration due to gravity after the first collapse. Even if every collapse destroyed a floor of both blocks, there is then a 24 foot drop where the parts will be accelerated. The mass doesn't diminish, so the energy doesn't either (except for impacts).
Originally posted by exponent
There are not 1300 engineers in ae911truth. Please do not lie about member counts. The number of structural engineers is extremely low, and as far as I am aware none have published papers in any well known journals about this?
Kinetic energy comes from destroying floors? But didn't you just say that no structure can collapse into the path of most resistance?
These seem to be contradictions, if the energy comes from destroying floors, what consumes the energy? Where does gravitational energy come in to this?
Originally posted by exponent
Why is it that I've had to ask you to re read previous posts of mine in two threads now? It's not that hard to spend the time to understand what I'm actually arguing, instead of just assuming i'm arguing against you at all times.
Here is an important post to read. That is why I pointed out the fact that any comparison made would need to take into account these factors.
This is why you're ignoring these factors in trying to compare the two buildings
What exactly is it you want NIST to do?
Originally posted by GenRadek
Go down to pages 54-72 of the PDS document and be sure to go through it all on what happened prior to collapse. It was observed, and recorded.
But before i go on, I have to say this. I've noticed that you and many of the TM supporters like to have selective amnesia when it comes to 9/11 and the events.
For example, talking about how fires cannot bring down the Twin Towers while ignoring (forgetting) the airplane impacts.
Or saying how the towers were suppose to survive multiple hits and therefore should not have collapsed while ignoring the fires afterward.
Then we have that the steel could not have failed when there are quite a few instances where steel structures did fail from fire alone.
The exterior columns could not have been seriously compromised by the fires and therefore it should not have collapsed, while ignoring the floor trusses that helped pull in the exterior columns prior to collapse.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
1300 engineers have reviewed the published work and have formally agreed with the assessments published. Each of these engineers has had their credentials verified. You can see a list of most of them here:
www.patriotsquestion911.com...
There is no contradiction.
As each lower floor gets "hammered" by the upper pancaking floor. As Newton's laws clearly demonstrate, for each action there must be an equal but opposite reaction, causing part of the upper "pile driver" to collapse as well.
This collapse of the pile driver floor is where the kinetic energy to keep the collapse sequence going comes from.
If the demolition engineers in the video had pushed off the second from the top floor of the building instead of the middle, the collapse would have stalled before the whole building was demolished.
ONLY if the building is collapsed in the middle, and ONLY if supports are removed at precisely the same time across the entire middle floor, and ONLY if the building is uniform in strength will total destruction of the building ensue.
Even given all of that - there will be DECELERATION as this occurs.
Originally posted by bsbray11
If you're ever not arguing against me, it's not that hard to preface what you're saying with "I agree." I haven't seen where you have been trying to reach an agreement. All I've seen is you coming on here to antagonize what I say personally.
I was showing exactly what kind of comparison the Windsor Tower makes to the WTC Towers, and then you come on here acting like it is a valid comparison and the WTC Towers suffered worse fires and had a weaker structure somehow. Then you start arguing how the structures are too different to be directly compared. Well then why did you jump my case in the first place? Are you still trying to say those fires and structures are comparable or what?
But not take into account the massive difference in the severity of the fires and the cross-sections of the steel that was failed?
If you do think those things are important, why didn't you mention them to Gen too? Like I said, you're only interested in antagonizing me.
I'm not ignoring them, I'm putting them in their place. They do NOT excuse the failed steel for being much smaller and easier to heat, or the fires being much, much more severe in the Windsor Tower, yet it not being leveled anyway. That building burned for 24 hours. Yet you don't bring up ANY of these things. Your silence on THOSE factors speaks volumes to your extreme bias.
Reproduce their failure mechanism with a single truss/perimeter column set up. They already made such a model in their labs and put fire to it for their calibration of their computer simulations. Nothing even remotely resembling their hypothesis occurred. I imagine that's why they never bothered to try and test it again later. By saying this test was for calibrating their computer simulations they excused themselves from having to explain why they were unable to validate their theory, and had to resort to manipulating computer simulations instead. And then completely ignoring the other 99% of the collapses. What part of that do you think demonstrates these are competent scientists?
Originally posted by exponent
So are the 1300 engineers that agree with me.
There are not 1300 engineers in ae911truth. Please do not lie about member counts.
Originally posted by bsbray11
He said 1300 engineers that agree with him, not in AE911. AE911 had 1270 last I heard. That's 30 less than 1300. You know what? I seriously doubt there are not 30 more engineers in the world who agree with them. So he is not lying. In fact if you count the number of professionals on this forum that aren't members of that group you'd already reduce that 30. LaBTop, Valhall, and Griff who used to post here are all scientists/engineers, and I know I'm leaving some people out. Griff is a structural engineer.
Do you really think every single professional that disagrees with the official story has sought out and joined this organization already? Then how do you explain the constant rise of their membership over time?
Originally posted by mnemeth1
I've already debunked your utter junk science so I will not waste my time copy-pasting everything I just laid out.
However your lies about there not being 1300 certified engineers need to be addressed.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by bsbray11
If you're ever not arguing against me, it's not that hard to preface what you're saying with "I agree." I haven't seen where you have been trying to reach an agreement. All I've seen is you coming on here to antagonize what I say personally.
I'm not interested in your ego
just to point out that you're still repeating the same falsehoods that I addressed over 10 months ago
I'm trying to motivate you into action, but the only action appears to be complaining about the motivation
They're comparable if you don't resort to simplistic analysis like 'look at this picture of a very bright fire in the dark!!!'.
If you actually look at what happened in the structures you'll understand why the Windsor Tower could never fail in the same way as the WTC.
Please tell me qualitatively the difference in severity of the fires.
The cross sections of steel are somewhat important
but as none of the steel in the WTC underwent the same failure modes I elected to focus on the more important aspects.
What are you talking about, I brought up the factors that allowed the building to survive.
How is that being biased?
pointing out why one survived and one didn't.
The intensity of fires are irrelevant as long as the difference is not extreme
Hell wood is better than steel under certain circumstances.
I just like to have a 'holistic' view of the situation, rather than trying to focus on one aspect alone.
You just answered your own question, you seem to be projecting a hypothesis onto tests that were clearly for calibration, then complaining that NIST tells you they were for calibration.
So you want them to redo the same experiment but on full scale and with full heating?